Who Really Killed the Gold Standard?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your post makes no sense I said treasury books gold at $48 an ounce not the fed.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Problem is there isn't enough gold the dollar would suffer and be worth less then it is now. There is approximately $1.5 trillion in circulation - $1.46 trillion of which was in Federal Reserve notes.

Right now the US has 286,890,472 ounces of gold the top 5 are USA,Germany, Italy, France and China. b
By the way the US has more gold then the next top 3 combined. With $1.5 trillion in circulation, that means each ounce of gold held by the U.S. government would need to be valued at $5228.00/ounce. Yet gold is currently trading at only $1337.00/ounce. So our dollar would be worth far less then current market value.

The other problem is any country that went on to gold standard would have a run on their gold reserves. Meaning the USA would immediately lose all its gold in the first day it was started. This would immediately crash the US economy

No, not in the US of A, they still exchanged dollars for gold for other nations until Nixon put an end to it. France had figured out the BS game and was pulling in the gold as fast as they could.

a reply to: nOraKat

a reply to: dragonridr

Did you read the thread? I said before that one of the typical arguments employed by state sponsored economists is that there isn't enough gold in the world to act as a money.

But this assumes prices do not change. We think in terms of dollars, or euros or whatever instead of thinking of prices in terms of gold. If we used gold as money, and it's possible now to increment gold into subunits of nanograms with asset backed cryptocurrencies, then prices would adjust to the available amount of money.

In regards to your assumption that modern economies would collapse, yes that is the point of my thread. They will collapse because currently credit is currency and it is fungible with savings which is essentially a naked short on savings, productivity.

Listen, our money should first of all be fair and easy to understand and use people understood a gold or silver coin, they understood how it was mined, refined and cast into a coin or bar. Also money has a component of time to it, and gold and silver were the first forms of money ever used so they will always be money because of history. You can't wipe away 1000s of years of history for the convenience of the present. Second of all since our currency is credit and since there is far more currency in circulation now than money (savings) as you pointed out with actual physical currency in circulation, our future is tied up in servicing all the underlying debt of that currency, but most of it was used in consumption like government spending or welfare or far worse these asset bubbles the financial industry blows.

So, the point of the thread is that the entire world economy will collapse eventually because 1) credit is currency and is fungible with savings (production) and 2) most of the credit created has already been consumed in welfare spending, war or blowing financial bubbles.

You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Socialism ignores reality.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your post makes no sense I said treasury books gold at $48 an ounce not the fed.

What makes no sense is claiming that the gold is undervalued when the current market valuation is provided online.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: dragonridr

Did you read the thread? I said before that one of the typical arguments employed by state sponsored economists is that there isn't enough gold in the world to act as a money.

But this assumes prices do not change. We think in terms of dollars, or euros or whatever instead of thinking of prices in terms of gold. If we used gold as money, and it's possible now to increment gold into subunits of nanograms with asset backed cryptocurrencies, then prices would adjust to the available amount of money.

In regards to your assumption that modern economies would collapse, yes that is the point of my thread. They will collapse because currently credit is currency and it is fungible with savings which is essentially a naked short on savings, productivity.

Listen, our money should first of all be fair and easy to understand and use people understood a gold or silver coin, they understood how it was mined, refined and cast into a coin or bar. Also money has a component of time to it, and gold and silver were the first forms of money ever used so they will always be money because of history. You can't wipe away 1000s of years of history for the convenience of the present. Second of all since our currency is credit and since there is far more currency in circulation now than money (savings) as you pointed out with actual physical currency in circulation, our future is tied up in servicing all the underlying debt of that currency, but most of it was used in consumption like government spending or welfare or far worse these asset bubbles the financial industry blows.

So, the point of the thread is that the entire world economy will collapse eventually because 1) credit is currency and is fungible with savings (production) and 2) most of the credit created has already been consumed in welfare spending, war or blowing financial bubbles.

You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Socialism ignores reality.

You know just joining together a bunch of financial terms you have heard does not a coherent point make.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend my arguments.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Currently the future's market sets the price of gold daily. Please provide a link from the federal reserve that clearly shows they set the price of gold.

If not drop the argument because it's nonsense.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Currently the future's market sets the price of gold daily. Please provide a link from the federal reserve that clearly shows they set the price of gold.

If not drop the argument because it's nonsense.

No one said they set the price of gold.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend my arguments.

Your arguments don't make any sense. No one with any understanding of economics or finance will understand them.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Currently the future's market sets the price of gold daily. Please provide a link from the federal reserve that clearly shows they set the price of gold.

If not drop the argument because it's nonsense.

No one said they set the price of gold.

You said this on the previous page:

Book price isn't about current valuation. The federal reserve provides an update valuation based on market price, they aren't understating anything.

What do you mean by 'update valuation' then? And please provide links. This thread is for general education purposes most of are here to learn not derail other people's threads.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Then please elucidate us with your superior understanding of economics instead of criticizing me otherwise it just looks like you're trying to derail the thread.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Currently the future's market sets the price of gold daily. Please provide a link from the federal reserve that clearly shows they set the price of gold.

If not drop the argument because it's nonsense.

No one said they set the price of gold.

You said this on the previous page:

Book price isn't about current valuation. The federal reserve provides an update valuation based on market price, they aren't understating anything.

What do you mean by 'update valuation' then? And please provide links. This thread is for general education purposes most of are here to learn not derail other people's threads.

You understand there is a difference between setting a price and reporting a valuation?

You claimed that US gold reserves were undervalued based the book price used. Book price isn't anything to do with current valuation.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then please elucidate us with your superior understanding of economics instead of criticizing me otherwise it just looks like you're trying to derail the thread.

No detailing your thread, but if you start a thread on economics or finance and misuse basic finance terms then you cant expect but to be called on it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then please elucidate us with your superior understanding of economics instead of criticizing me otherwise it just looks like you're trying to derail the thread.

No detailing your thread, but if you start a thread on economics or finance and misuse basic finance terms then you cant expect but to be called on it.

Well if you think I am wrong then add to the discussion by providing reasons and links. Otherwise you're derailing the thread.

And I said derailing not detailing must by your usual tactics eh? Are you paid by the fed?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Currently the future's market sets the price of gold daily. Please provide a link from the federal reserve that clearly shows they set the price of gold.

If not drop the argument because it's nonsense.

No one said they set the price of gold.

You said this on the previous page:

Book price isn't about current valuation. The federal reserve provides an update valuation based on market price, they aren't understating anything.

What do you mean by 'update valuation' then? And please provide links. This thread is for general education purposes most of are here to learn not derail other people's threads.

You understand there is a difference between setting a price and reporting a valuation?

You claimed that US gold reserves were undervalued based the book price used. Book price isn't anything to do with current valuation.

I said that treasury books the price of gold at $48 an ounce and I was incorrect as per their last status report of US government gold reserves the 'book' value is actually $42.22 per fine ounce:

Book Value: The Department of the Treasury records U.S. Government owned gold reserve at the values stated in 31 USC § 5116-5117 (statutory rate) which is $42.2222 per Fine Troy Ounce of gold. The market value of the gold reserves based on the London Gold Fixing as of September 29, 2017 was $335.5 billion.

www.fiscal.treasury.gov...

If you want to help us, please explain the difference between the 'book value' and the 'market value'.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Who Really Killed the Gold Standard?

Those who noticed a way to steal all the gold and get away with it...on a governmental level.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

In normal usage book value for a non depreciating asset is its acquisition cost. It's used for measuring gains/ losses.

It's slightly different when talking about US gold reserves as the book is set as a fixed amount regardless of acquisition date.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then please elucidate us with your superior understanding of economics instead of criticizing me otherwise it just looks like you're trying to derail the thread.

No detailing your thread, but if you start a thread on economics or finance and misuse basic finance terms then you cant expect but to be called on it.

Well if you think I am wrong then add to the discussion by providing reasons and links. Otherwise you're derailing the thread.

And I said derailing not detailing must by your usual tactics eh? Are you paid by the fed?

Sorry for the typo.

And yes you are that important that the Fed pays people to derail your threads. You caught me out, no bonus for me this month now...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SkeptiSchism

In normal usage book value for a non depreciating asset is its acquisition cost. It's used for measuring gains/ losses.

It's slightly different when talking about US gold reserves as the book is set as a fixed amount regardless of acquisition date.

Okay so I assume you do know a lot about this topic and you are being helpful. Does this topic then relate to the gold certificates that the fed holds? Ron Paul asked this question to 2 men from the federal reserve during a hearing several years ago, I think in 2008:



So are you saying that the book price of gold is set by the fed instead of treasury based on the gold certificates it holds? Isn't that gold the property of the people of the united states and not the federal reserve?

If the fed considers it there gold, why are they not changing the book price of gold to reflect it's current price in the future's markets?